Reproductive skew affects social information use.

Marco Smolla, Charlotte Rosher, R Tucker Gilman, Susanne Shultz
Author Information
  1. Marco Smolla: Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. ORCID
  2. Charlotte Rosher: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  3. R Tucker Gilman: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. ORCID
  4. Susanne Shultz: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. ORCID

Abstract

Individuals vary in their propensity to use social learning, the engine of cultural evolution, to acquire information about their environment. The causes of those differences, however, remain largely unclear. Using an agent-based model, we tested the hypothesis that as a result of reproductive skew differences in energetic requirements for reproduction affect the value of social information. We found that social learning is associated with lower variance in yield and is more likely to evolve in risk-averse low-skew populations than in high-skew populations. Reproductive skew may also result in sex differences in social information use, as empirical data suggest that females are often more risk-averse than males. To explore how risk may affect sex differences in learning strategies, we simulated learning in sexually reproducing populations where one sex experiences more reproductive skew than the other. When both sexes compete for the same resources, they tend to adopt extreme strategies: the sex with greater reproductive skew approaches pure individual learning and the other approaches pure social learning. These results provide insight into the conditions that promote individual and species level variation in social learning and so may affect cultural evolution.

Keywords

Associated Data

figshare | 10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4542083

References

  1. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Mar;14(3):102-106 [PMID: 10322509]
  2. Physiol Biochem Zool. 1999 Nov-Dec;72(6):677-90 [PMID: 10603331]
  3. Anim Behav. 2000 Mar;59(3):F4-F11 [PMID: 10715190]
  4. Anim Behav. 2000 Aug;60(2):175-180 [PMID: 10973718]
  5. J Theor Biol. 2000 Nov 7;207(1):21-35 [PMID: 11027477]
  6. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Nov 29;357(1427):1559-66 [PMID: 12495513]
  7. Annu Rev Entomol. 1996;41:407-31 [PMID: 15012335]
  8. Nature. 2004 Apr 15;428(6984):715-6 [PMID: 15085121]
  9. Learn Behav. 2004 Feb;32(1):4-14 [PMID: 15161136]
  10. Physiol Behav. 1992 Feb;51(2):277-85 [PMID: 1557438]
  11. Nature. 2007 May 31;447(7144):581-4 [PMID: 17538618]
  12. J Anim Ecol. 2008 Sep;77(5):850-8 [PMID: 18547347]
  13. PLoS One. 2008;3(12):e3868 [PMID: 19066625]
  14. Evol Hum Behav. 2008 Mar;29(2):106-118 [PMID: 19255605]
  15. PLoS One. 2010 Mar 24;5(3):e9241 [PMID: 20352086]
  16. Science. 2010 Apr 9;328(5975):208-13 [PMID: 20378813]
  17. Dev Psychol. 2010 Nov;46(6):1694-709 [PMID: 20822212]
  18. Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Feb 22;278(1705):619-27 [PMID: 20826479]
  19. Curr Biol. 2010 Dec 21;20(24):R1067-8 [PMID: 21172622]
  20. Trends Ecol Evol. 1997 Jul;12(7):270-4 [PMID: 21238065]
  21. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998 Jul 1;13(7):288-92 [PMID: 21238306]
  22. J R Soc Interface. 2011 Nov 7;8(64):1604-15 [PMID: 21508013]
  23. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jun 28;108 Suppl 2:10918-25 [PMID: 21690340]
  24. Am J Primatol. 2011 Dec;73(12):1239-49 [PMID: 21905061]
  25. Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 22;279(1731):1176-84 [PMID: 21937494]
  26. Dev Psychobiol. 2013 Mar;55(2):168-75 [PMID: 22315158]
  27. Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Jul 7;279(1738):2645-51 [PMID: 22398164]
  28. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Aug 5;367(1599):2171-80 [PMID: 22734060]
  29. Nat Commun. 2012;3:980 [PMID: 22864573]
  30. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59437 [PMID: 23555034]
  31. Am J Primatol. 2013 Sep;75(9):917-26 [PMID: 23606188]
  32. Theor Popul Biol. 2014 Feb;91:3-19 [PMID: 24211681]
  33. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 04;8(12):e81116 [PMID: 24324664]
  34. PeerJ. 2014 Mar 11;2:e283 [PMID: 24688861]
  35. Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Jan 7;282(1798):20142209 [PMID: 25392473]
  36. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 27;10(3):e0120180 [PMID: 25816230]
  37. Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Sep 22;282(1815):null [PMID: 26354936]
  38. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016 Mar;31(3):215-225 [PMID: 26775795]
  39. Biol Lett. 2016 Jun;12(6): [PMID: 27303053]
  40. Oecologia. 1996 Aug;107(3):301-306 [PMID: 28307258]
  41. PeerJ. 2018 Jan 3;6:e4190 [PMID: 29312821]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0sociallearningskewinformationdifferencesreproductivesexuseculturalevolutionaffectpopulationsmayagent-basedmodelresultrisk-averseReproductiveapproachespureindividualIndividualsvarypropensityengineacquireenvironmentcauseshoweverremainlargelyunclearUsingtestedhypothesisenergeticrequirementsreproductionvaluefoundassociatedlowervarianceyieldlikelyevolvelow-skewhigh-skewalsoempiricaldatasuggestfemalesoftenmalesexploreriskstrategiessimulatedsexuallyreproducingoneexperiencessexescompeteresourcestendadoptextremestrategies:greaterresultsprovideinsightconditionspromotespecieslevelvariationaffectscompetition

Similar Articles

Cited By